toast Posted May 2, 2014 #101 Share Posted May 2, 2014 I also googled " UFO's seen from airplanes "...... Interesting.... Ultimate Fattening Object 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bendigger0 Posted May 2, 2014 #102 Share Posted May 2, 2014 hahaha I asked for that lol He's actually telling the truth... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midyin Posted May 3, 2014 #103 Share Posted May 3, 2014 (edited) Are those the folk that Phil Schneider engaged at the Dulce base? I don't think. The Lacerta Interviews claim that they are a peaceful race... The thing that's annoying about the reptilian conspiracies is how inconsistent they are from each other.. Phil Schneider says they are physical beings and evil, David Icke says they are evil invisible spiritual beings(how does he know they're there if we can't see them?.... ManBearPig), and the Lacerta Interviews say they are a super advanced peaceful telepathic race, and some other d**** think there's another giant planet full of them that our government won't tell us about in this solar system... How are we suppose to believe this crap when everything is so inconsistent?.. Edited May 3, 2014 by Midyin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseCuster Posted May 3, 2014 #104 Share Posted May 3, 2014 (edited) Looks like someone has been down the road: http://ufomedia.blog...o-pictures.html The very strong possibility that these craft are powered by a propulsion system that affects the area around them is a given. There is absolutely nothing in that video that is convincing argument or evidence that propulsion systems of ET craft causes photos of them to be blurred. Is this the best you can come up with? I'm guessing a 30 second Google search and this is what you came up with as one of the first links to a claimed explanation for blurry poor UFO photos.The entire article is an invented set of fantasy science fiction concepts that the author imagines might cause a photo of an ET craft to be blurry. There's no science, no facts, no evidence. Just a bunch of suppositions and assumptions about how he images the drive mechanism would work, mixed in with a bunch of scientific sound words and phrases. He has never (no-one has) investigated a UFO drive mechanism in order to know how they actually work, he's just making **** up in order to post-hoc explain the problematic fact of poor quality photos that Ufology is inundated with. It's nothing but a bunch of guesswork imagined up to explain away an awkward fact. What's even worse is that the poor quality photos we're talking about wouldn't even be explained if the fantasy he's concocted about propulsion systems were even true. The problem with the photos isn't that the UFO is poor quality. It's that, in general, the entire photo is poor quality. It's not like we're talking about crisp clear photos with blurry UFOs. It's blurry photos with blurry UFOs. The problem is that the entire photo is poor quality which is the result of any combination of crappy camera, poor lighting, small UFOs blown up for publication purposes, etc. In other words, the reason the UFOs look poor quality is because they're taken from (and sometimes cropped and blown up from) poor photos. His half-assed attempt at an explanation doesn't address this fact. Edited May 3, 2014 by JesseCuster 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merc14 Posted May 3, 2014 #105 Share Posted May 3, 2014 (edited) Are gravity thingies required to travel amongst multiverses? What the hell does gravity have to do with multiverses? JC nailed it in the above post with "The problem with the photos isn't that the UFO is poor quality. It's that, in general, the entire photo is poor quality. It's not like we're talking about crisp clear photos with blurry UFOs. It's blurry photos with blurry UFOs" Might be my new signature with JC's permission Edited May 3, 2014 by Merc14 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted May 3, 2014 #106 Share Posted May 3, 2014 I also googled " UFO's seen from airplanes "...... Interesting.... Our interests differ. I did know that some considerable time ago. Are your sure you are on the right forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted May 3, 2014 #107 Share Posted May 3, 2014 I don't think. The Lacerta Interviews claim that they are a peaceful race... The thing that's annoying about the reptilian conspiracies is how inconsistent they are from each other.. Phil Schneider says they are physical beings and evil, David Icke says they are evil invisible spiritual beings(how does he know they're there if we can't see them?.... ManBearPig), and the Lacerta Interviews say they are a super advanced peaceful telepathic race, and some other d**** think there's another giant planet full of them that our government won't tell us about in this solar system... How are we suppose to believe this crap when everything is so inconsistent?.. Good point. Ufology does contain enigmas like this. There is so much about Phil Schnieder that is unexplained. Maybe one day we will know the truth about him. David Icke? More of a conspiracy theorist than a Ufologist and to my knowledge has never had a genuine experience. He just claims that Lizard people exist. There is absolutely nothing in that video that is convincing argument or evidence that propulsion systems of ET craft causes photos of them to be blurred. Is this the best you can come up with? I'm guessing a 30 second Google search and this is what you came up with as one of the first links to a claimed explanation for blurry poor UFO photos. The entire article is an invented set of fantasy science fiction concepts that the author imagines might cause a photo of an ET craft to be blurry. There's no science, no facts, no evidence. Just a bunch of suppositions and assumptions about how he images the drive mechanism would work, mixed in with a bunch of scientific sound words and phrases. He has never (no-one has) investigated a UFO drive mechanism in order to know how they actually work, he's just making **** up in order to post-hoc explain the problematic fact of poor quality photos that Ufology is inundated with. It's nothing but a bunch of guesswork imagined up to explain away an awkward fact. What's even worse is that the poor quality photos we're talking about wouldn't even be explained if the fantasy he's concocted about propulsion systems were even true. The problem with the photos isn't that the UFO is poor quality. It's that, in general, the entire photo is poor quality. It's not like we're talking about crisp clear photos with blurry UFOs. It's blurry photos with blurry UFOs. The problem is that the entire photo is poor quality which is the result of any combination of crappy camera, poor lighting, small UFOs blown up for publication purposes, etc. In other words, the reason the UFOs look poor quality is because they're taken from (and sometimes cropped and blown up from) poor photos. His half-assed attempt at an explanation doesn't address this fact. You are not too keen on the theory then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseCuster Posted May 3, 2014 #108 Share Posted May 3, 2014 You are not too keen on the theory then? Why would anybody be keen on a "theory" that consists of a bunch of made-up sci-fi fantasy about how a ET craft might possibly work in such a way as to handwave away the awkward fact that the photos are typically poor quality? Do you honestly find it convincing?Like I said, the problem isn't blurry UFOs in crisp pics that might possibly explained by the fantastical explanation offered in your link. It's blurry UFOs in blurry pics. Pictures of UFOs taken in poor lighting. Distant or small UFOs over-enlarged resulting in fuzzy images. The poor quality of the UFO photos is explained by the poor quality of the overall photo they come from and there's no need to resort to fanatastical made-up explanations involving plasmas and "intelligent bio-skins" to explain the fuzzy nature of the pics. Fuzzy photographs of UFOs are caused by the fact that they are fuzzy photographs taken with cheaper, older cameras, etc. or that they are distant and small objects over-enlarged to enhance them and there's no need to imagine up fantasy alien technology to explain the obvious. What exactly is compelling to you about the link you provided? It's a bunch of made of stuff thought up to post-hoc explain away the poor quality of the evidence it's trying to defend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted May 3, 2014 #109 Share Posted May 3, 2014 (edited) antigravitational fuzziness . Edited May 3, 2014 by seeder 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted May 3, 2014 #110 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Why would anybody be keen on a "theory" that consists of a bunch of made-up sci-fi fantasy about how a ET craft might possibly work in such a way as to handwave away the awkward fact that the photos are typically poor quality? Do you honestly find it convincing? Like I said, the problem isn't blurry UFOs in crisp pics that might possibly explained by the fantastical explanation offered in your link. It's blurry UFOs in blurry pics. Pictures of UFOs taken in poor lighting. Distant or small UFOs over-enlarged resulting in fuzzy images. The poor quality of the UFO photos is explained by the poor quality of the overall photo they come from and there's no need to resort to fanatastical made-up explanations involving plasmas and "intelligent bio-skins" to explain the fuzzy nature of the pics. Fuzzy photographs of UFOs are caused by the fact that they are fuzzy photographs taken with cheaper, older cameras, etc. or that they are distant and small objects over-enlarged to enhance them and there's no need to imagine up fantasy alien technology to explain the obvious. What exactly is compelling to you about the link you provided? It's a bunch of made of stuff thought up to post-hoc explain away the poor quality of the evidence it's trying to defend. That's why we are here. To unlock these great mysteries. Part of that involves conjectures that fit the evidence. Otherwise all you have is cold denial, which solves nothing. antigravitational fuzziness No that's people not unexplained objects. It doesn't surprise me that you fail to see the difference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seeder Posted May 3, 2014 #111 Share Posted May 3, 2014 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted May 3, 2014 #112 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Your comparisons and analogies continue to be totally inaccurate and inappropriate. It does make me laugh though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakari Posted May 3, 2014 #113 Share Posted May 3, 2014 That's why we are here. To unlock these great mysteries. Part of that involves conjectures that fit the evidence. Otherwise all you have is cold denial, which solves nothing. Adding in or presenting fantasies, or made up from the mind " facts " as evidence solves nothing. Ignoring facts really solves nothing. Only makes the topic worse in reality. Makes it look like a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted May 3, 2014 #114 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Adding in or presenting fantasies, or made up from the mind " facts " as evidence solves nothing. Ignoring facts really solves nothing. Only makes the topic worse in reality. Makes it look like a joke. As I said every idea is up for evaluation. Ignoring what facts? Whose facts? Are you saying that there are facts that say there are no UFO's? That's easy to challenge and debunk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rafterman Posted May 3, 2014 #115 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Are you at least aware that many solid scientific space discoveries have been made by amateurs mastering poor instruments or using existent data base and information gathered by professionals? It is not the money or schooling whom is contributing to space conquest but the passion! Absolutely and I'm one of them. I'm also aware that there are a bunch of derp warriors out there that wouldn't know a descending cylindrical object from a hole in the ground and do things like sue NASA because they don't cater to their idiocy. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JesseCuster Posted May 4, 2014 #116 Share Posted May 4, 2014 That's why we are here. To unlock these great mysteries. Part of that involves conjectures that fit the evidence.But you didn't put forward a conjecture about how ET craft might have a drive mechanism that causes photos to be poor quality.You made a straight forward factual declaration that clear photos of ET craft are "not possible" due to the effects of the anti-gravity drive mechanism. You made a claim as if it were an established fact about ET craft and blurry photos and drive mechanisms, were called on it, and are now reduced to trying to defend you claims are mere "conjecture". If you want to make wild conjectural guesswork claims about why the photos of UFOs are poor quality, then don't try and pawn it off as blunt declarations of truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
willowdreams Posted May 4, 2014 #117 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Dont link to a different post mate, this is what you said precisely The Word of Thoth, on 02 May 2014 - 03:51 PM, said: Once..... Just ONCE..... I'd like to se a crystal clear picture of a suspected UFO. Fuzzy, dark, blurry, out of focus pics/clips are doin my swede in. zoser: Not possible due to the anti-gravitational field effect. This proves the point: So be a good chap and answer the question posed by JC , I know i am probably mistaken, but i thought he was being sarcastic and not serious.. i think now though on the reactions of others, that i am wrong Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted May 4, 2014 #118 Share Posted May 4, 2014 But you didn't put forward a conjecture about how ET craft might have a drive mechanism that causes photos to be poor quality. You made a straight forward factual declaration that clear photos of ET craft are "not possible" due to the effects of the anti-gravity drive mechanism. You made a claim as if it were an established fact about ET craft and blurry photos and drive mechanisms, were called on it, and are now reduced to trying to defend you claims are mere "conjecture". If you want to make wild conjectural guesswork claims about why the photos of UFOs are poor quality, then don't try and pawn it off as blunt declarations of truth. Do disagree that they have anti-gravity technology? If so then how do they fly? They are reported as mainly silent and extremely swift. They also are reported to hover silently at very low speeds including being totally stationary. People have however reported an electrical static sound. That bears investigation sometime. Then we have the blur effect on the images; the Oregon rocket image being a very good example. Now put the two together. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scowl Posted May 4, 2014 #119 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Do disagree that they have anti-gravity technology? If so then how do they fly? Zoser, you might want to ask the birds how they fly sometime. They are reported as mainly silent and extremely swift. Yes, I've seen many meteors. They also are reported to hover silently at very low speeds including being totally stationary. They must use the antigravity technology used in helicopters. People have however reported an electrical static sound. That bears investigation sometime. And did these people define "electrical static cloud"? If they did I'm sure the responses were hilarious. Then we have the blur effect on the images; the Oregon rocket image being a very good example. We photographers called this the "out of focus effect". It happens when an object is too close or too far away from the camera to be within the depth of field of the lens. The out of focus bug guts on the window of the plane flying over Oregon are exactly what we see in these cases. Now put the two together. All right. Out of focus splotch in photo + ignorance and desire to believe anything = false conclusion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted May 4, 2014 #120 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Zoser, you might want to ask the birds how they fly sometime. That's not how UFO's are reported to operate is it? They must use the antigravity technology used in helicopters. And the deafening noise of these cumbersome craft doesn't persuade you against making such a bizarre comparison? And did these people define "electrical static cloud"? If they did I'm sure the responses were hilarious. Electrical static type of noise is often reported. DYOR We photographers called this the "out of focus effect". It happens when an object is too close or too far away from the camera to be within the depth of field of the lens. The out of focus bug guts on the window of the plane flying over Oregon are exactly what we see in these cases. We Ufologists call it the anti-gravity effect. All right. Out of focus splotch in photo + ignorance and desire to believe anything = false conclusion. You mean the rocket UFO object. Difficult to avoid when it stares you in the face. Here is it again: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toast Posted May 4, 2014 #121 Share Posted May 4, 2014 People have however reported an electrical static sound ... ... during KRAFTWERK concerts. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakari Posted May 4, 2014 #122 Share Posted May 4, 2014 We Ufologists call it the anti-gravity effect. Zoser , I know when you are confronted with questions you can not answer, or know prove you wrong, you skirt around them or ignore them, or change them around. Let me try to dumb this down. Lets use only your posts as examples, and do not ask which ones. In general. There are plenty with " eye witneses ", and they describe the UFO's very well. Even describing windows, or writing on them So, again, if people " see " them clearly, why do cameras see them " blurry "? Is it that the anti gravity device randomly shuts down when the UFO knows no cameras are around, and only peoples eyes are watching? I really would love for you to answer this. And, the other on, anti-gravity in space? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted May 4, 2014 #123 Share Posted May 4, 2014 ... during KRAFTWERK concerts. Also a humming sound. http://mysteriousuniverse.org/2011/04/the-sound-of-a-ufo/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zoser Posted May 4, 2014 #124 Share Posted May 4, 2014 Zoser , ...... or know prove you wrong, you skirt around them or ignore them, or change them around. Let me know when you think you have done that. There is a first for everything. I'm still waiting. Let me try to dumb this down. Lets use only your posts as examples, and do not ask which ones. In general. There are plenty with " eye witneses ", and they describe the UFO's very well. Even describing windows, or writing on them Some have indeed reported that. Examples: Rendlesham, Antonio Villas Boas, and The Kecksburg object. DYOR. So, again, if people " see " them clearly............... You make another classic assumption. If people are seeing them directly under what conditions? Landed or in flight? if landed then is the anti-gravity working? You work that out. why do cameras see them " blurry "? Let me dumb it down for you..... Do you suppose it could depend on how fast it is travelling and to what intensity the anti-gravity is operating? You need to think about this one a bit deeper Mr S. Condescension will only attract the same by the way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakari Posted May 4, 2014 #125 Share Posted May 4, 2014 You make another classic assumption. If people are seeing them directly under what conditions? Landed or in flight? if landed then is the anti-gravity working? You crack me up...... Take 4.....Dumbed down even more. As I said, using reports you have posted. A UFO flying, seen by people. Descriptions of UFO in detail. Clear, silver, windows, writing, lights, etc....They reported seeing it flying, and describe it in detail. Again, why do witnesses see them clear, but cameras do not?.......How does this hold to your antigravity theory? Can you try not to skirt around these yet again please. And, anti-gravity in space? 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now